IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agiwat/v264y2022ics0378377422000397.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Making the invisible visible: Co-learning guided development of an operational tool for irrigation management

Author

Listed:
  • Srinivasan, M.S.
  • Measures, R.
  • Fear, A.
  • Elley, G.

Abstract

Inefficient use of irrigation in New Zealand pastoral farms is widespread and the uptake of irrigation scheduling tools to improve efficiency is poor. Recent studies suggest that end-user inclusive participatory approaches to developing tools and practices could improve the uptake, contributing to improved economic and environmental outcomes. Using a co-learning based participatory approach, we (researchers) worked with a group of pastoral farmers, water resources regulators and industry professionals, to develop an operational irrigation scheduling support tool that would facilitate improved water use. The key engagement principles used were: taking time to understand the problem from multiple (stakeholder) perspectives; applying equal value to all sources of knowledge; providing an atmosphere that fosters learning among stakeholders (co-learning); staying aware of the wider (problem) context; and remaining flexible and adaptable. The co-learning approach revealed over-lapping, yet distinct, perceptions of improved water use: for farmers, it meant pasture growth unimpeded by available soil water; for regulators, reduced irrigation-drainage and consequent leaching of nutrients from rootzone; and for researchers, justified use of water based current (crop) demand and forecast (rainfall) supply. The co-learning guided operational tool combined near-real time soil water monitoring (demand) and short-term (two to six days) rainfall forecast (supply), to support on-farm irrigation scheduling decisions. The tool included biophysical (data type and synthesis), structural (data format, presentation and visualisation) and technological (instrumentation and data collection protocols) features that incorporated the diverse perspectives to water use. Uptake of the tool by the pilot study farmers was high, and their irrigation practices evolved because of the information it provided. Inclusion of multiple stakeholder perspectives throughout the tool development process revealed unexpected insights and resulted in improved outcomes for all stakeholders.

Suggested Citation

  • Srinivasan, M.S. & Measures, R. & Fear, A. & Elley, G., 2022. "Making the invisible visible: Co-learning guided development of an operational tool for irrigation management," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 264(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:agiwat:v:264:y:2022:i:c:s0378377422000397
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agwat.2022.107492
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378377422000397
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agwat.2022.107492?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Srinivasan, M.S. & Jongmans, C. & Bewsell, D. & Elley, G., 2019. "Research idea to science for impact: Tracing the significant moments in an innovation based irrigation study," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 181-192.
    2. Blane Harvey & Tessa Lewin & Catherine Fisher, 2012. "Introduction: Is Development Research Communication Coming of Age?," IDS Bulletin, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 43(5), pages 1-8, September.
    3. Garmendia, Eneko & Stagl, Sigrid, 2010. "Public participation for sustainability and social learning: Concepts and lessons from three case studies in Europe," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1712-1722, June.
    4. John F. Forester, 1999. "The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262561220, April.
    5. Rutger Brugge & Jan Rotmans, 2007. "Towards transition management of European water resources," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 21(1), pages 249-267, January.
    6. Jakku, E. & Thorburn, P.J., 2010. "A conceptual framework for guiding the participatory development of agricultural decision support systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(9), pages 675-682, November.
    7. Cox, P. G., 1996. "Some issues in the design of agricultural decision support systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 52(2-3), pages 355-381.
    8. Nguyen, Nam C. & Wegener, Malcolm K. & Russell, Iean W., 2007. "Decision support systems in Australian agriculture: state of the art and future development," AFBM Journal, Australasian Farm Business Management Network, vol. 4(1-2), pages 1-7.
    9. Klerkx, Laurens & Nettle, Ruth, 2013. "Achievements and challenges of innovation co-production support initiatives in the Australian and Dutch dairy sectors: A comparative study," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 74-89.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Einsiedel, Edna F. & Boyd, Amanda D. & Medlock, Jennifer & Ashworth, Peta, 2013. "Assessing socio-technical mindsets: Public deliberations on carbon capture and storage in the context of energy sources and climate change," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 149-158.
    2. So Pyay Thar & Thiagarajah Ramilan & Robert J. Farquharson & Deli Chen, 2021. "Identifying Potential for Decision Support Tools through Farm Systems Typology Analysis Coupled with Participatory Research: A Case for Smallholder Farmers in Myanmar," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-20, June.
    3. Srinivasan, M.S. & Jongmans, C. & Bewsell, D. & Elley, G., 2019. "Research idea to science for impact: Tracing the significant moments in an innovation based irrigation study," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 181-192.
    4. Vänninen, Irene & Pereira-Querol, Marco & Engeström, Yrjö, 2015. "Generating transformative agency among horticultural producers: An activity-theoretical approach to transforming Integrated Pest Management," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 38-49.
    5. Prost, Lorène, 2021. "Revitalizing agricultural sciences with design sciences," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    6. Martin, G., 2015. "A conceptual framework to support adaptation of farming systems – Development and application with Forage Rummy," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 52-61.
    7. Ara, Iffat & Turner, Lydia & Harrison, Matthew Tom & Monjardino, Marta & deVoil, Peter & Rodriguez, Daniel, 2021. "Application, adoption and opportunities for improving decision support systems in irrigated agriculture: A review," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 257(C).
    8. Saarikoski, Heli & Mustajoki, Jyri & Hjerppe, Turo & Aapala, Kaisu, 2019. "Participatory multi-criteria decision analysis in valuing peatland ecosystem services—Trade-offs related to peat extraction vs. pristine peatlands in Southern Finland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 17-28.
    9. E. Melanie DuPuis & Brian J. Gareau, 2008. "Neoliberal Knowledge: The Decline of Technocracy and the Weakening of the Montreal Protocol," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 89(5), pages 1212-1229, December.
    10. Bergez, J. -E. & Garcia, F. & Lapasse, L., 2004. "A hierarchical partitioning method for optimizing irrigation strategies," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 80(3), pages 235-253, June.
    11. McCown, R. L., 2002. "Changing systems for supporting farmers' decisions: problems, paradigms, and prospects," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 179-220, October.
    12. Makena Coffman & Karen Umemoto, 2010. "The triple-bottom-line: framing of trade-offs in sustainability planning practice," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 12(5), pages 597-610, October.
    13. te Brömmelstroet, Marco, 2017. "Towards a pragmatic research agenda for the PSS domain," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 77-83.
    14. Primmer, Eeva & Kyllonen, Simo, 2006. "Goals for public participation implied by sustainable development, and the preparatory process of the Finnish National Forest Programme," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(8), pages 838-853, November.
    15. Paul Ofei-Manu & Satoshi Shimano, 2012. "In Transition towards Sustainability: Bridging the Business and Education Sectors of Regional Centre of Expertise Greater Sendai Using Education for Sustainable Development-Based Social Learning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(7), pages 1-26, July.
    16. Liz Barry, 2022. "Community science and the design of climate governance," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 171(3), pages 1-17, April.
    17. Davies-Colley, Christian & Smith, Willie, 2012. "Implementing environmental technologies in development situations: The example of ecological toilets," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 1-8.
    18. Joshua Henkel & Georg Schwesinger, 2020. "Establishing Sustainable Consumption - How Future Policies Can Channel Consumer Preferences," Bremen Papers on Economics & Innovation 2007, University of Bremen, Faculty of Business Studies and Economics.
    19. Ranger, S. & Kenter, J.O. & Bryce, R. & Cumming, G. & Dapling, T. & Lawes, E. & Richardson, P.B., 2016. "Forming shared values in conservation management: An interpretive-deliberative-democratic approach to including community voices," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 344-357.
    20. Ahmed Z. Khan & Frank Moulaert & Jan Schreurs & Konrad Miciukiewicz, 2014. "Integrative Spatial Quality: A Relational Epistemology of Space and Transdisciplinarity in Urban Design and Planning," Journal of Urban Design, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(4), pages 393-411, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:agiwat:v:264:y:2022:i:c:s0378377422000397. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agwat .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.